Saturday, April 12, 2014

Reviewing Peer Review

While waiting for our flight to the other side of the world for our latest Seasons 3 shoot on America Unearthed, I decided to write a blog post about the subject of so many posts: peer review. For years I’ve heard academics complain about peer review of my work on the Kensington Rune Stone and other “taboo” artifacts. They argue and posture hoping they can somehow negate the conclusions I’ve drawn. The fact is all my work has been peer reviewed by some of the most competent, qualified, knowledgeable, objective, and experienced professionals and academics one could want in the hard science disciplines of geology and engineering. The problem skeptical archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, and historians have is they are trying to assert that the “academic” peer review process is the only acceptable way to truth. Besides trying to frame the argument to their distinct advantage, they couldn’t be more wrong.

Academic peer review in principle works well to a certain degree; if you have the luxury of time and are in an environment immune to the problems commonly seen in academia such as territoriality, competition for funding, runaway egos, intimidation, threats of retribution, favoritism, and ordinary personal pique. In the fourteen years I’ve been involved in the investigation of mysterious artifacts and sites I’ve encountered all of these failings in my dealings with many academics. They insist there is no legitimacy to my or anyone else’s work unless I have gone through the process they dictate is the only acceptable way. Readers of this blog know what I’m talking about.

If this review process is so perfect, then why has it not been able to accurately answer the question of the authenticity of the Kensington Rune Stone, Bat Creek Stone, Spirit Pond Rune Stones, the Newport Tower, and Tucson Lead Artifacts? The fact is academic peer review and publishing process has failed miserably. Further, defenders of the “faith” refuse to look inward and take a critical look of their sacred process to try and figure out what went wrong. Instead, they turn a blind eye to obvious failures, dig their heels in and attack those who dare to question. Allow me to present a particularly egregious example I have been personally involved in that still has reverberations with on-going research.

In 2006, Richard Nielsen and I published our 5-year collaborative work titled, The Kensington Rune Stone: Compelling New Evidence. Nielsen and I became close friends and the collaboration of his runological and linguistic work and my geological work on the artifact produced voluminous new factual data and discoveries that were all consistent with the artifact being a genuine medieval artifact. Shortly after our book was released, financial and personal issues - details of which can be found on the Internet - prompted Nielsen to publically announce that our professional and personal relationship was over. The details of the “breakup” are not important. What is important is the well-documented course of actions Nielsen then chose to pursue.

Nielsen reached out to the academic community in Sweden by admitting he was “bad” for working with the lowly professional geologist and asked forgiveness. Once accepted by one scholar in particular, he then went about things the “academic way” and set his sights on the Runestone Museum. Using the goodwill generated by the previous five years he gained their trust and suggested research that in principal was a good idea. He proposed a digital 3D scan of the artifact using the latest technology. This was performed in November of 2008. In the cleverly worded contract he drafted for the museum, he made himself the sole benefactor of the entire digital data-base. He then refused to provide a copy of that data. To date, that data is still not available to anyone except his sole Swedish academic contact and his then girlfriend/advisor who both apparently believe this is the proper “academic way.”

Now armed with the 3D data base, Nielsen then wrote and published on his own personal website a series of “academic” papers essentially undoing our joint KRS work and bashing me personally. When I eventually read these papers that I assume were “peer reviewed” by his Swedish colleague, it was obvious to me what was going on. Nielsen’s plan was to try to undermine everything I had done and paint himself as the now worthy “academic” and resurrect the KRS in his image. Crazy as it sounds, this story is true. Hardly bitter or angry (well, I was angry when I read the garbage he had written knowing full well he, too, knew it was crap), I feel sorry for my former colleague for the damage he’s done to himself and the Kensington Rune Stone. As of April of 2014, Nielsen still has not released the digital 3D data to the Runestone Museum or any other competent researchers, academic or otherwise.

So what do we take away from this sordid affair? Well, one of the unfortunate events is opportunistic skeptics cite Nielsen’s bogus research as legitimate criticism of my work. I’m sure most don’t realize the “research” they cite is blatantly bias, never had legitimate peer review, and self-published on his own website. Even the writer of a blatantly anti-diffusion page on Wikipedia felt it was appropriate to use Nielsen’s “academic” work to criticize my research on my own Wiki page. Upon deleting the garbage I was chided for editing my own page which incited a debate among the Wiki editors.

With Darwin Ohman
next to a modern rune stone
I carved to commemorate
the 2006 book:
“Kensington Rune Stone:
Compelling New Evidence.”
After a week of condescending discussion of my demanding that they either delete the fraudulent citations or remove my Wiki page altogether, they removed my page. No doubt they were quite happy to see any mention of the “heretic’s” KRS work go dark. So much for the academic peer review process in this case. For readers interested in an unbiased take on this latest sad chapter in the history of the Kensington Rune Stone, I suggest Darwin Ohman’s, Taking a StandClick Here. Darwin takes no pride in writing this article but felt it had to be done.

Let’s get back to peer review. I’m quite sure most academics don’t fully understand what we do in the professional world with regard to peer review which I would argue is just as thorough, faster and, in cases like the Kensington Rune Stone, is more accurate and reliable. The reason I’ve been the principal geologist in over 7,000 forensic projects in almost 30 years is because we have to produce. Academia doesn’t have deadlines and the review process can take years which I don’t believe has produced a better end product.

The other major difference between academic and professional peer review is accountability. As licensed professionals we have taken an oath to perform our work professionally, ethically, and to protect the health and welfare of the public. If licensed professionals are found guilty of incompetent work or unethical practice, we risk losing our license to practice. Further, we are required to testify to our facts, interpretations and conclusions in a court of law under oath. What accountability does a tenured professor have?

When all is said and done, I’m fully prepared to testify and defend my peer-reviewed work on all the artifacts and sites I’ve published results on. I’m really tired of listening to “academic” bloggers and Amazon power-trippers using arrogant posturing and name-calling trying to claim sovereignty over scientific method and the peer review process. Instead, we would all appreciate it if these people would stop trying to dictate what they think is proper scientific method and start practicing it. If you are truly curious about the Kensington Rune Stone and other artifacts and sites, then ask intelligent questions and let’s discuss it like adults. If you don’t “believe” they are genuine, then be happy in your “faith” and take your complaints somewhere else.


  1. Dear Mr. Wolter, Don't let the bastards grind you down!! So much of life is gone from our knowledge. Sometimes olden things each time are first things when people like you begin to bravely question what history holds as past and gone actually flashes and gushes forth what is most human in us: The wish to know the wonders hidden in the deep distant buried past of our human heritage. I admire your courage...if we don't question things, what will we ever know? How would we progress? Everything depends on questioning. Otherwise, why live?

    1. Thanks for your comment. I'll be back from the other side of the world next week and will catch up on responding.

  2. I caught the "new World Order" episode that aired earlier this afternoon. Greg Ericson, the conspiracy theory factualist was insistent that the Denver International Airport had at least 5 or 6 levels of hidden tunnels that were being used by the NWO. Stacy Stegman, DIA spokesperson, took you to only one underground level - the old cavernous baggage claim area. You did not ask, to the best of my recollection, if there were additional levels of tunnels. If you would have, I'm sure she would have given you some platitudinous, company approved, vacuous response like: "Oh, that is just another one of the many myths that circulate about this place." With Ericson being so adamant that several levels were extant, why did you not broach the issue with Stegman?

    1. Thanks for your comment. I'll be back from the other side of the world next week and will catch up on responding.

    2. I do believe there are several levels of tunnels under Denver Airport. The purpose for these chambers are not fully known. What we need are people to do some exploring and documenting. NWO surely are up to something . The signs are everywhere if b you know where to look.

  3. Forensics would not have hired you if they thought you were anything BUT professional, and a real pro! Peer review is really BS. Too many egos within YOUR peers! Ha! I didn't know about your book. But now that I do I can't wait to read it! Keep fighting the good fight! People interested in THE TRUTH about history deserve to get JUST THAT, the TRUTH! Thank you! Bobbie Cotton

    1. Thanks for your comment. I'll be back from the other side of the world next week and will catch up on responding.

  4. Given that "historians" and "archaeologists" bow to the "peer review", I have a few comments

    1) should all "historians" be subjected to "scientific" review. An example would be for a "historian" reviewing "masonry" construction. The answer would be NO - why, because he is not a "mason". -- End of story.

    2) should "historians" be subjected to reviews by "military" personal regarding battle plans, outcomes, etc etc . NO - why - they probably never went to West Point or served in the field of battle -- they need to be dismissed.

    3) In my own experience or learning about the "Clovis Barrier" conflict. The question is -- should "historians" and "archaeologist" be allowed to "review" the work of "glaciologists" and "natural science" engineers regarding the "ice sheets of the "Ice AGE. You already know the answer to that one --- NEVER NEVER NEVER.

    But the bottom line is --- they have screwed with the system so bad, they should be fired. Oops, forgot --- HISTORIANS can't be fired.

  5. I did not push the right buttons for my posting -- so sorry for any errors, (spelling, etc). The bottom line, to me, is the "academics" or really out of line to claim to have the last word. NO they do not have the last word. I also fine, they have a notorius habit of not including ALL information. This is INFORMATION HYJACKING.

    So, we are back to the comment that starts out like this ----

    "I swear to tell the truth, the WHOLE TRUTH........ "

  6. Scott
    Would love to shake the hand of someone stands alone and tells the rest of the story! Your probably away, but I am in minneapolis thru Tuesday. Icwould like to help out on any way I can....back east.
    A CT Yankee in Peer Review court
    A CT Yankee in

  7. The shortcomings of 'peer review' are well known by those who wish to know. A field called "sociology of knowledge" has a lot to say about the gatekeeping and social approval or disapproval that too often outweighs any objectivity.
    The truth is the only thing that endures in the end, though, so keep on pursuing truth.

  8. ho seguito le trasmissioni sul nostro programma focus "italia " e condivido la sua entusiasmante razionalità sui templari , anzi avrei ancor più scavato dove si sosteneva che vi fosse stato il tesoro dei templari , mettendo in luce quanto il principe aveva predisposto e credo che sia ancora li il famoso tesoro . complimenti e continuo a seguire le vostre vicissitudini

    1. Tiberio,

      Here is a "Google Translate" version of your comments for our English speaking readers: "I followed the broadcast on our program focus "Italian" and share his exciting rationality on the Templars, in fact I would have even more dug where it was alleged that there had been the treasure of the Templars, highlighting how the prince had prepared and I think it is still them the famous treasure. compliments and I continue to follow your adventures."

      I think you are referring to the drilling at New Ross episode where we did not find any treasure. At this point, I'm convinced the Templars did bring "treasure" to Nova Scotia, likely to Oak Island. However, whatever they brought and burieded there was only temporary. The Templars wre smarter than people think and whatever was there was likley moved inland centuries ago.

  9. I like your show. Keep up the interesting work!
    Thanks from a fellow Minnesotan.

    1. We'll keep doing it as long as the network allows us to; thanks!

  10. Hi Scott,

    I’m gratified to see such a post on the subject of peer reviews. Without question, there are many implementations of peer reviews that are “tuned” for a specific discipline or profession. I’m retired from IT as a technical architect, and peer reviews were integrated into our methodologies for software and systems designs. Beyond the “thumbs-up-thumbs-down” approach, peer (technical) reviews in an IT setting is a forum where the merits of a design are discussed, exposing specific aspects of the design where a potential flaw may develop or where alternative designs to a sub-module should be evaluated. It’s my observation that much of the squabbles concerning what constitutes peer review and what does not misses the very objective of a peer review: to openly discuss a conclusion, a position, or a design. Academics have their unique implementations of peer reviews; scientists working for corporations follow a peer review process that is outlined per corporate policy; and licensed, professional engineers are obliged to comply with what is considered a standardized review process.

    It’s becoming more apparent to me, and perhaps others who also enjoy watching America Unearthed, that your detractors circle like vultures not because you don’t follow their implementation of peer reviews, but rather what you present is unnerving to them, i.e., you’ve upset their apple cart of nicely organized arrays of accepted histories. When you question or dispute an aspect of a particular historical perspective or artifact, the detractors get nervous, engaging their reality distortion fields. They either don’t care about or understand the peer review process you utilize as a licensed professional geologist.

    Where I come from a person’s hands are foretelling of their experiences and expertise. I’m more inclined to believe that wisdom with each passing year, and I would tend to accept the findings of someone who works in the field, digging, scratching away layers of soil and rock to uncover the truth than one who operates from a chair with manicured nails and porcelain hands. While I do not accept 100 percent of what you present, it’s not because of the peer review process; it’s the lack of additional data and analysis for me to ponder so I may draw my own conclusions. I neither have the time nor the gumption to totally understand what crawls under the skin of your detractors, but they leave me with a suspicious feeling that they’re a heady lot preoccupied with academic dogma and pedantic squabbling.

    What I do have time for is more America Unearthed, as I lack the fortitude and expertise to do what you so charismatically do when you present your findings. At the risk of a detractor or two poaching what I say here out of context, my opinions are my own and if I enjoy watching America Unearthed, that is my prerogative. Take care, Scott, and bring it on for the next season. I’m looking forward to it.

    1. Hi Kenny.
      You appear to lack an understanding of how the research of history and archaeology work. The aim of research is to upset the apple cart, but you also to prove your evidence. The best way to do this is to try and disprove it. If the evidence is strong you wont be able to disprove it. Scott on the other hand only looks at evidence that proves his theory without looking at the evidence that disproves it. Scott also continuously uses things such as ground penetraiting radar to prove his point. His conclusions are things such as 'there is a burial there'. The radar only records annomalies. So there is a change of density in the soil, which could be natural or could be a burial. Scott's statements such as 'there is a burial' demonstrates the issue with his work. As someone in the consulting industry some of what Scott says about peer review is true. We have deadlines, we demand results. Scott's work however would not pass this review.While it has some promising aspects it contains little to no proof. Also the filtering of posts on this website demonstrates he is not open to discussion. This show is about ratings, not science.

    2. Anonymous #2,

      The proper word is “evidence” which is supportive, not “proof” which is conclusive. Where did you get the idea I filter posts? I post all commentary I receive regardless of how critical and/or silly it might be. If you read my comments to Anonymous #1 (Lincoln Assasination thread) you’d understand that we are trying to find a balance between good science and entertainment. You are quite right that we don’t go to the level of detail I would like, but then because you are so offended we must be doing something right to initiate such a passionate reaction.

      You too, are free to watch a different show if it's such a hardship.

  11. Hi Scott,

    I can't wait for Season 3 of your show! It's my favorite show on TV right now and I've seen every episode.

    I'm curious what you think about the DNA evidence that has been found linking some of the Indians that are here to the people specifically in Galilee? I'm sure you have heard of it but I saw this video on youtube called the Lost Civilization DNA segment with Dr. Yates and Meldrum?

    Any thoughts? Do you think you will do a show on it?

  12. I have heard about the Middle Eastern DNA results found in certain Native Americans that have been tested. To claim I know a lot about would me not be correct. However, I think more work needs to be done to properly vet these results, but the early indications are very promising.

    I'm not at all surpised given artifacts like the Bat Creek Stone and the Tucson Lead Artifacts that clearly show a Hebrew presence in North America in the 1st/2nd and 8th/9th centuries. That they also left some of their DNA here as well shouldn't come as any surprise.

    Can't say for sure that we'll incorporate these DNA studies in a future episode, but we sure might!

  13. Hi Scott,
    Your show is awesome! Love watching it! So interesting! Anyway, I have a theory about the hannukah earth works and tell me what you think.

    I think besides the menorah and oil lamp, there is a compass and square that is part of the earth work as well. They, as I’m sure you know, also have ancient symbolic meaning. The foundation of free mason symbolism comes from King Solomon’s temple and other ancient symbols.

    As you can see in looking at it, the compass is on the upper left hand side and the square is the lower right hand side. I was watching your show with my friend and that is one of the first things she actually noticed. Anyway, again, just a theory and maybe a long shot but what else would the upper left part mean? Why wouldn’t they have just designed it like the right side? I know the compass is diagonal but they had to do it that way or it would have run into the oil lamp and you still get the same meaning in my opinion.

    Then with the Menorah, I’m sure you know what the difference is between the 7 branch and 9 branch candelabrum but it seemed like there was some debate about it on the show?, so just thought I would throw this out there for whoever was curious about it:

    Menorah (Temple), a seven-branched lampstand used in the ancient Tabernacle in the desert and Temple in Jerusalem, a symbol of Judaism since ancient times and the emblem of the modern state of Israel

    Menorah (Hanukkah), a nine-branched candelabrum used on the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, commemorating the above

    The Hanukkah menorah is, strictly speaking, a nine-branched candelabrum lit during the eight-day holiday of Hanukkah, as opposed to the seven-branched menorah used in the ancient Temple or as a symbol. The ninth holder, called the shamash ("helper" or "servant"), is for a candle used to light all other candles and/or to be used as an extra light. To be kosher the shamash must be offset on a higher or lower plane than the main eight candles or oil lamps. There are differing opinions as to whether or not all the lights must be arranged in a straight line,[2][3] or if the channukiah can be arranged in a curve.[4][5] The menorah is among the most widely produced articles of Jewish ceremonial art. The seven-branched menorah is a traditional symbol of Judaism, along with the Star of David.[6]

  14. I'm finding that i am really missing the weekly new episodes of many
    of the TV shows that are inside a summer hiatus. EU's return this fall
    is having me yearning more and more for a deeper analysis of topics
    like the Kensington Rune Stone or even the ability of ships from old
    Carthage to navigate the deep oceans better than the Roman ships
    circa the time period of Cato the Censor. When PBS aired a recent
    SECRETS OF THE DEAD episode, the SIM of the circular harbor of
    old Carthage had me thinking of the wise passages in Plato's Republic

  15. Anonymous,

    I think you'll like this fall's season of show we're putting together now. We're closing in on the halfway mark and I think this could be our best season yet. I've love to share details, but...

    You know I can't do that yet.

    1. Salve, in merito alla sua trasmissione dove cerca prove della conoscenza delle Americhe prima di Cristoforo Colombo vorrei farle conoscere una persona molto particolare di cui sono venuta a conoscenza da tempo.

      La Duchessa Luisa Isabel Álvarez de Toledo y Maura.

      Discendente dei feudatari di porto di Palos e finanziatori della spedizione di colombo.
      Persona un po particolare, ma grande appassionata di storia e della verità in generale, si mise a studiare l'archivio di famiglia contenente, circa 6 milioni di documenti,tra cui anche quelli che riguardano Colombo.
      La duchessa ha scoperto, documentazione alla mano, che la scoperta dell'america fu tutta un inganno!
      Le americhe erano da sempre conosciute sino dall'antichità. Venivano chiamate con altri nomi.
      Colombo non era un marinaio e sapeva benissimo dove stava andando e quanto tempo sarebbe durato il viaggio. Si esportavano già prodotti e minerali. E la scoperta è stata inscenata per motivi che la duchessa
      spiegherà benissimo nei suoi libri.
      libri che sono stati vietati in spagna, non si possono neanche stampare,
      per motivi che lei potrà comprendere molto bene. Ora, io so che sono stati stampati in Francese e non so se esistono in inglese, ma riuscire a leggerli anche con la traduzione le darà tutte le informazioni che le servono con tutte le prove storiche inconfutabili. Esistono anche delle interviste televisive.

      Spero di esserle stata utile perchè odio tutte le bugie che ci fanno studiare.

    2. This post was written in Italian and using Google Translate, here is the message in English:

      Hi, regarding its transmission where looking for proof of knowledge of the Americas before Columbus I'd like to know a person very particular about where I learned a long time.

      The Duchess Luisa Isabel Álvarez de Toledo y Maura.

      Descendant of the feudal lords of the port of Palos and financiers of the expedition of Columbus .
      Some particular person , but a great lover of history and truth in general , began to study the family archive containing about 6 million documents , including those that relate to Colombo .
      The Duchess has discovered, documents in hand, that the discovery of America was all a hoax !
      The Americas had always known from antiquity up . They were called by other names .
      Columbus was not a sailor , and he knew where he was going and how long it would last the trip. We already exported products and minerals. And the discovery was staged on the grounds that the Duchess
      explain very well in his books.
      books that have been banned in Spain, you can not even print ,
      for reasons you will understand very well. Now, I know that they were printed in French and I do not know if they exist in English, but also be able to read them with the translation will give you all the information you need with all the historical evidence irrefutable . There are also TV interviews .

      I hope to be her helpful because I hate all the lies that we are studying.

    3. Dear friend from Italy,

      I have no doubt about anything you have written as Columbus was connected to post put-down Templar interests and certainly knew about the America's long before his first voyage. If documentation exists anywhere it is in various archives in Europe including the Vatican. It would interesting to know more about these documents you reference.

      Do you have any suggestions?

    4. Hi,
      Grazie per aver risposto.
      La documentazione esiste ancora e si trova presso la ”Fundacion casa Medina Sidonia” nel palazzo dei duchi a Sanlùcar de Barrameda, Andalusia, Spagna.
      La presidente si chiama Liliane Dahlmann.
      L’archivio della fondazione comprende circa 6 milioni di documenti della famiglia Medina Sidonia.
      La duchessa ha scritto dei libri che parlano dell'argomento.
      Quello più specifico si intitola:
      áfrica versus américa

      di Luisa Isabel Álvarez de Toledo
      Duchessa di Medina Sidonia

      Spero di esserti stata utile.

    5. Here is the latest post from Francesca translated again from Italian,


      Thank you for responding.
      The documentation still exists and is located at the "Fundacion Medina Sidonia house" in the palace of the dukes in Sanlucar de Barrameda, Andalusia, Spain.
      The president is Liliane Dahlmann.
      The archive includes about 6 million of the foundation documents of the family of Medina Sidonia.
      The duchess has written books about the subject.
      The most specific entitled:
      africa america versus

      Luisa Isabel Álvarez de Toledo
      Duchess of Medina Sidonia

  16. You tell them Scott. He just got Scared at the last minute and wanted to stay a sheep instead of a Wolf. Now.

  17. do we have an English translation of "Africa vs America" --- this would be plain wonderful.

  18. I have some questions about a paper I am writing for my Communications class. First, I stumbled into your show and haven't missed an episode, not for the tv spot, but for the information we all have longed for over the years. A situation that warrants us to look at the history of America with unbiased eyes and thought. I am not a scientist, and recently with the Vatican addressing the issue of releasing some documents to open public, it truly will be fascinating to see if anything correlates for us in the states! If you don't mind I will post my questions here and I will give full source citation in my paper and will give you a copy of it.

  19. I have some questions about a paper I am writing for my Communications class. First, I stumbled into your show and haven't missed an episode, not for the tv spot, but for the information we all have longed for over the years. A situation that warrants us to look at the history of America with unbiased eyes and thought. I am not a scientist, and recently with the Vatican addressing the issue of releasing some documents to open public, it truly will be fascinating to see if anything correlates for us in the states! If you don't mind I will post my questions here and I will give full source citation in my paper and will give you a copy of it.

  20. Dear NOYB,

    I am happy to answer your questions and you don't need to be a scientist, just fire away. There may be a delay in my response when I'm traveling, but I will get back to you.

    I am cautiously optimistic about the Vatican releasing documents. They are largely responsible for the suppression of knowledge of the America's for centuries because they wanted to (and did) exploit the resources and the people for themselves.

    I guess we'll see what happens over time.

  21. a person should also be mindful of the release of the paper and writing of the book about the Chinon Parchment. this was a 700 year coverup or did the Vatican just "forget" they had it.

    Just the fact, they were found not guilty of heresy is enough to send any historian off the deep end. This whole time, the so-called "mainstream historian" (that label is a bunch of junk) was writing about AND defending a lie and a fraudulent piece of history.

  22. Hello Scott!
    Last day I watched the ep12s1 about the Newport tower and the Templar knights. Last year I've read about the possibility that the order of Templars was born in Italy and founded by an italian crusade, Ugo de Paganis.
    Since the 1600 was know that Ugo de Paganis,the legendary founder, was a native of Pagani, Salerno.
    In the XVII century when began the work of frenchification of his biography by the hands of mostly french writers, his name changed in Huges de Pains.
    This research is made by Mario Moiraghi.
    He wrote also two books: Hugo de Paganis-le prove della sua origine,2003 and Hugo de Paganis-il romanzo,2013.
    Then, in Sala Consilina,a comune of Salerno, there is the Baptistery of San Giovanni in Fonte used by the templars as a church.
    Plus, on an italian tv program called Voyager, the host told that L'Aquila(Abruzzo) was built as the new Jerusalem.
    I can' t wait to see new seasons.

  23. Rita,

    This is very interesting; that Hugh de Payen had Italian roots is not such a stretch. The blood-line families of which he was surely a part of, could easily have branched out to Italy and other countries. However, when the plan was implemented it would make sense they would assemble and start it off in France.

    I have no doubt that key pieces of evidence in the “Templars coming to the Americas” story will come from various archives in Europe. In fact, it has already begun as several friends and researchers are sharing these discoveries here.

    Thank you and keep the info coming!

  24. Scott,

    Have you checked out the claim in Oklahoma?

    It seems to be a proven site for a land marker from the 1008-1012 period of time.

    Ken W

    1. Ken,

      Yes, we did an episode in season 2 about Vikings where I looked at the Heavener Rune Stone which I'm quite sure is genuine.

  25. I think I slept through 9 or 10 years of my K-12 Freemason American History - one or two years of the same thing would have been enough. I own both seasons of America Unearthed on Amazon Instant Video - who woulda thunk that I like history!

  26. You didn't sleep through school, it simply wasn't taught to us on purpose. The word "Freemasonry" was rarely mentioned and never explained. Always kept in the shadows as part of our programming.

    While I'm not a Freemason, the more I learn, the more I like about it and now realize how it holds the key to understanding the history of religions and humanity.

    I wasn't huge a history guy when I was in school either. Now, I'm hopelessly addicted. The truth is out there, you just have to want to find it!

  27. Before you delve into Mormonism, I would highly recommend that you research where the Book of Mormon came from. From a scholarly point of view and not what BoM advocates say. There are several major possibilities of how Smith copied or concocted it. I love your show and for the sake of keeping truth truth, please do research into it before committing to an episode. Also, look into the inconsistencies of what the BoM says about bees, horses, etc. And the lack of evidence for any war where 100,000 + people were slaughtered. And the book View of the Hebrews which (declared by an "unofficial" report of the LDS church) says has 18 major points with the BoM.

  28. Rob,

    All I can say is I've already done quite a bit of research on Mr. Smith and he was an interesting character to say the least. Many Mormons have prompted me to look into the BoM and all I can say is, "Be careful what you wish for."

  29. I haven't gone into the BoM at all but I have dug into the history of John Wesley Powell and his parents. As far as I can tell, that man did more damage then can be fixed to the history of the "America's". And he started with the Mormans.

  30. Dave,

    John Wesley Powell was the ultimate authority behind the Bureau of Ethnology Reports to the Smithsonian and primiary conspirator involved in the largest historical cover-up ever perpetrated on the American people.

    I don't know a lot about Mr. Powell, but until I see evidence to the contrary he is not an historical figure to be revered IMHO.

  31. that man was wicked

  32. Hi Scott. I know this is off topic but. I'm watching the episode of your show about the ancient Celts possibly coming to America. As I am watching this I noticed several things about the Anubis Cave carvings that I would like to comment on. First, my family came here from Ireland as I am only a second generation Irish-Hungarian American. Some of the symbols immediately stuck out to me because of my faith as a druid. First the carving that was said to be the Sun God looks similar to the Celtic deity Lugh who was the deity of light. He is also represented as having a sun or bright light behind his head, and it looks like what could be a spear is by one of his arms. Lugh is known for weapon being a spear. Bulls were also sacrificed by the ancient druids during rituals in the spring as mentioned by the Romans. The Romans and others also not that the Druids are primarily the group of people who used the Ogham alphabet which is still used to this day, the only thing that makes researching the ancient druids difficult however, is that roughly 10 to 12 pages of written documents exist that actually speak about the druids. They simply didn't believe that their teachings should have been written down and as a result they were passed on orally. I hope this has been of some help, and would love to know if any more "digging" has been done on this. Thanks and keep up the great work.

    1. Blacknova84,

      What little I know about Druidism is followers were very secretive and like Native Americans transfer knowledge via oral tradition as you mentioned. I would think for these reasons if ancient Druids were in North America, like the Templars who many believe embraced certain Druid beliefs, they would likely have gotten along well with Natives. If so, they could have made their way all across North America if they chose to.

      The Anubis Cave site could very well have Druid influence present; it's certainly possible.

    2. I was curious if Scott is LDS and if so could the desire to prove the Book of Mormon be clouding his objective reasoning?

  33. Scott is not LDS and I have no desire to prove the book of anything.

  34. What does Everett Brown's latest claim about the Narragansett Rune Stone do to your Templar Knights theory? You have consistently used the three American rune stones with the hooked X's as the foundation for your theories. If these hooked x's turn out to be hoaxes then your whole narrative goes out the window. If as a geologist you have labeled the Narragansett Stone carving as being hundreds of years old, and proof comes forward that it is only 50 years old, then is it valid to question or dismiss all of your other rune stone dating examples (KRS, Bat Creek, etc.)?

    1. His claim does nothing to my thesis or my dating examples. Steve Dimarzo shared the following information with several people involved in this bogus claim today:

      "James, I have been working the phone all day and now I have 8 eyewitness accounts to the inscription. One man, Dave McMann, use to call the letters "hieroglyphics". I have names and phone numbers of each of them and all are quite certain 99.9% that the inscription was there well before 1964! How many do we need for a conviction???"

      I wasn't surprised to hear this as the factual evidence, such as the advanced weathering, is consistent with the inscription being many centuries old given the relative competency of the rock. Further, the inscription was very skillfully carved and I don't believe for a second Mr. Brown was that skilled at 13 years of age.

      The runes and word separators are a big problem for Brown. What dictionary carried these specific characters in 1964? The answer is none. Only the Kensington Rune Stone had the Hooked X and if Brown copied the KRS, why didn't he copy it? Only four of the nine runes in the NRS inscription are found on the KRS, and two of them are carved incorrectly. My understanding is in a recent statement he said he messed up the first character on the second line, yet it's a perfect Hooked X. There are plenty of other runic problems that prove Mr. Brown is not telling the truth.

      The question is: Why would someone do this? One reason is for attention. However, I do not know Mr. Brown and will let the psychologists sort that one out. The only other reason is like many academics and apparently you, he doesn't like or believe the fact the Templars were here in Medieval times. Perhaps he's a devout Roman Christian and an otherwise good and honest person. Many people with strong faith have done far worse than tell lies to justify what they believe is God's will. I don't know what motivated Mr. Brown, but factual evidence and apparently at least 8 eyewitnesses demonstrate clearly his story is fiction.

  35. Do you pay royalties to Dan Brown?

    1. Ahhh... No. He should be paying me royalties!

    2. Your thesis obviously discredits the Christian faith. Admittedly, this might not be your primary goal, but an active attack on Christianity will be an inevitable consequence. Have you thought about seeking funding from a billionaire Saudi Prince or maybe some other wealthy anti-Christian entities? If so, you'd probably be so deep in money you could create your own truth much easier than by selling a couple hundred of your own poorly written books.

    3. My goal is to try and figure out what happened in the past. I have no agenda to attack or discredit anyone or any thing. Whatever the fallout is from realizing that truth will be what it is.

    4. Are you bitter that even though you have your own television show you are still only invited to guest on late night AM radio, local cable access, and small luncheon meetings made up primarily of retired people with a few hours to waste before the early bird dinner special? The Scott Wolter Facebook page has been up and running now for a year give or take, and you have a total of 227 followers. I could start a Facebook page today that caters to eaters of anchovies, and it would attract more than 227 followers by this time next week. Who's fault is it that after all the hours of lectures, two primetime History Channel two hour features, and two whole seasons of your own show on H2 you and your message still haven't broken through? I think it's time to consider that people have heard what you have to say and they're not really all that impressed. You can't really claim conspiracy of suppression when you have your own television platform to make any claim you want, right?

    5. I don't even know what point you're trying to make. First, I don't do Facebook for the simple reason that I can't even keep up with email. the Facebook page was set up by a fan and I've never visited it personally.

      It is partly due to the hundreds of lectures I've given in the past several years that led to America Unearthed. Because of my commitments with the show I've had almost no time for lectures or social media. However, I try to do as many radio interviews as I can. Whether they are big or small stations, it doesn’t matter to me. They all help get the information out. It's obvious my message has gotten to you, but the tone of your note is decidedly negative. What exactly is it that we present on the show that is so offensive to you?

      in any case, I'm thrilled and very appreciative to have this opportunity to host this show and get the info out to millions of people. The lecture circuit will be there when my time on the show is done and you be can sure I'll try to reach as many of retired people willing to waste their time before the early bird dinner special. And maybe a few more people while I'm at it.

      To answer your question about my being bitter? Absolutely not!

  36. Dear Scott, What is your profession exactly, that you take an oath for and swear to act for the welfare of the public? Is it to do with the undertaking the tv show? Thanks.

  37. Peter,

    I am a licensed Professional Geologist; Minnesota License #30024. It has nothing to do with the show other than the geological work and opinions I express on the show can be held accountable by the State Licensing Board.

    I'm always mindful of this and it is why I get so annoyed by questioning academics who don't have anything resembling the same accountability.

    1. Right. But, let's separate the geology from the history. You could technically be held accountable by your State Board for ONLY your geological work on the show. But, the state licensing board can't do anything about your ridiculous claims when it comes to your nonsense views on history. It is important that people understand the distinction. Without this clarification you make it seem like the Minnesota government agrees with your historical conclusions, and you know they do not. It is also important to note that the reason why the state board has not taken action yet in regards to your geologic conclusions on the show is that nobody else with a geology degree has shown any interest in exploring, repeating, or expanding on your techniques. So, your conclusions cannot be refuted....yet. Why is that do you suppose? I mean, if you can spin a whole television career out of dating the KRS, then why wouldn't others be using your "ground-breaking" techniques and applying them to other archaeological finds?

    2. First, you have made a number of suppositions here that are factually incorrect. Second, using your own opinions as a basis to assert that my views of history are wrong and somehow should be grounds for a complaint is a little flawed don’t you think? Third, you assume no one has taken an interest in my geological relative-age dating work when many geologists and open-minded archaeologists have taken an interest. You simply haven’t heard about it.

      You are welcome to disagree with my findings and opinions, but don't try to pretend that you have ‘inside information’ to the truth about North America's pre-Columbian history. I suspect your obvious disdain is due to fear that I could be right and all your previous beliefs about that history were wrong.

      That would also explain why you are so bitter.

    3. First, would you care to elaborate on my "suppositions" that you claim are "factually incorrect", or are you only capable of making vague, blanket statements much like you do in your television show? Second, I was not suggesting that your ridiculous views on some secret Templar history that only you know about should be grounds for your state geological board to take action on. I was making the distinction that the geological board has jurisdiction over geology and is in no way able to do anything about your ridiculous history claims. You make it a point of NOT making this clear in an obvious attempt to mislead people into thinking that various official agencies actually take your historical assertions seriously. And, they do not. Third, please provide examples of other geologists inspired by you who are using your technique to date and/or refute other accepted knowledge if you can. I'm betting you can't. Further, I'm betting you simply ignore this part of the paragraph.

      As far as pretending I have inside knowledge on North America's pre-Columbian history? I'm not making that claim. You are. I'm freely admitting that I have no more knowledge on the subject than any armchair historian with a college diploma, access to a public library, and the an internet connection. H

      Hey, I'm open to the idea that anyone from any land could have come to North America at anytime either by accident or by design. I have no problem at all with this idea. All I require is proof of some kind. You keep coming back to the KRS as proof. IF the KRS is authentic, which you have NOT proven to the satisfaction of anyone but yourself, then it simply proves that various Scandinavians MIGHT have been in Minnesota in the mid-1300's. I say "might" because there is no provenance or proof that the KRS was even carved where it was found, no tracsh, no evidence of a campsite, heck, not even any chippings from the KRS itself. Regardless, Norse in Minnesota in the 1300's is certainly not out of the realm of possibility, and wouldn't even really be all that shocking. But, "possible" doesn't mean it happened. Everyone knows and has known for more than 100 years now that the Vikings came to North America 500 before Columbus. It's conceivable to me that within the 350 year difference they very well could have explored much more of North America. It's borderline insanity for you to claim that one carved rock and your personal conversations with other fringe historians trumps all of the archaeological digs, first hand accounts, and ancient documents mankind has pieced together to create what we know about history.

      Before you can claim that "everything we know about history is wrong" I would suggest you spend a little bit of time reading actual accepted history. You keep saying "Columbus wasn't first". No kidding? If this shocks you then go back to school. I remember being taught about Viking voyages to North America when I was in 5th grade about 30 years ago. If you're angry about your lack of historical knowledge then blame your grade school teachers and your own failure as a student, don't blame people who have dedicated their lives to archaeology, history, etc.

    4. Let me ask you a question; if the Templars intermarried and assimilated with their Native "Blood Brothers", what would you expect to find in an archaeological context if they were living together? Unless they dropped their swords, last I checked they ate plants, hunted animals, cooked and ate them. The answer is you wouldn’t find anything. Please don't make me have to tell you that an absence of archaeological evidence proves nothing. If you had read, understood, and treated my thesis about the carving and burial of the KRS with respect you wouldn't have made the above statements. Why is it you don't respect the advanced weathering data of the inscription that myself and Newton H. Winchell have done?

      You might also try getting rid of the condescending attitude and angry tone of your posts and you'll get the same response in kind. Otherwise, go back and read my books and reports and then come back prepared to discuss details, not your opinions.

    5. Let me answer your question; if Europeans intermarried with Native Americans in North America during the middle ages or earlier I would expect to uncover a lot of archaeological and scientific evidence. First, there would be European (and/or Middle Eastern) genetic markers within the skeletal remains of Native Americans who lived at the time. Second, I would expect to find evidence of a vast unexplained native population decline during the period due to exposure to European diseases; small pox, black plague, etc. I would expect to find archaeological evidence of a dramatic upgrade and change in native technology; weapons, textiles, food prep, agriculture. I would expect to find indigenous North American plant foods grown for profit in Europe prior to Columbus. And, certainly at least a few Templars WOULD have dropped their swords. We know from real history that Europeans left many artifacts behind during the 1600 and 1700's when they began trading with natives here in North America. You would find any number of artifacts. Certainly, if as you suggest, Europeans by the hundreds or thousands were coming here some of them would have died here. Presumably, if they intermarried with natives then they would have been buried near native settlements or holy lands. Where are the graves with European skeletons and armor? A murderer who expertly covers his trail still leaves clues for the police. Are you suggesting that thousands of Europeans traveled here for hundreds of years prior to Columbus and left nothing except one carved stone that turned up in Minnesota? That doesn't even make common sense.

      Now, maybe you can answer one of my challenge me to read and understand your thesis on the carving and burial of the KRS. By all means, help me to understand. I read your book, and frankly I find the part about sacred geometry and stone holes on the Ohman property to be a bunch of garbage. It's right out of a 1960's Hardy Boys mystery. Do ALL of the stone holes on the Ohman property fit in with the sacred geometry design that you claim points to where the KRS was found? The answer is "no". So then, how did you pick and choose which holes to use and which holes didn't matter? Did you do relative weathering studies on all of the holes and date them to the time the KRS was carved? How do you know exactly where the KRS was found? I know there is a marker in the park, but the actual discovery site has always been controversial. All of these questions that you don't answer from just one chapter in one of your books. Your thesis is wrong or at the very least incomplete, and should be judged that way.

    6. I'm still holding my breath waiting for a coherent answer to the questions I pose above.

    7. Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. Hard drive crashed while on the road and just now getting this back up to speed on a new computer.

      First, you can drop the pissy attitude in your future posts. It’s annoying and doesn’t reflect well on you to the readers of this blog. With regard to archaeological and scientific evidence, there’s plenty of it there already that you and like-minded academic types have chosen to ignore. The scientific geological relative-age dating work on the weathering of the KRS by myself and Newton Winchell, and the pristine archaeological work by John Emmert with the Bat Creek Stone are just two notable examples. Please don’t bother bring up the Mainfort and Kwas nonsense; it’s embarrassing.

      Second, let’s talk about DNA for a moment shall we? Where are the remains of the hundreds, if not thousands of skeletal remains found in burial mounds excavated by the Smithsonian and their minions? We tried to get the jawbones collected by Emmert of the individual in Bat Creek Mound #3, but the official response to the Eastern Band of Cherokee by the Smithsonian was they ‘lost them.’ How convenient. When proper samples are collected and tested within the tribes most likely to contain those European markers I bet we’ll see interesting results. You’d need to know who to test and the Eastern Ojibwa would be a great place to start.

      According to one Story Keeper in the Ojibwe in Ontario, Canada, Wendy Phillips, over half their people died in the 14th century from plague which I believe is documented on the KRS on line eight the inscription. “Red with blood and death” is how people stricken with plague were often described in the 14th century.

      Third, the Cistercians and Knights Templar were experts in farming and animal husbandry. However, I wouldn’t expect to see archaeological evidence of a wholesale change in Native farming practices and technology until there were enough knowledgeable Europeans to have meaningful impact in North America. That didn’t happen until after the Civil War with the founding of the Grange here in Minnesota. Of course you know it’s an offshoot of Freemasonry that is directly connected to the medieval brotherhood.

      Fourth, medieval swords have been found on this continent, but not in a properly documented archaeological context. This is a problem for sure, but I’m sure there are more in burials that have not been discovered yet. Remember, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. I am not suggesting thousands of medieval Europeans traveled here, I’m suggesting a few hundred traveled here secretly over roughly 300 years. They were primarily concerned with mapping the continent, placing pre-emptive land claims like the KRS, firming up their strategic alliances with certain Native tribes primarily in the eastern North America, and laying the ground work for the eventual founding of what would become the United States. It was essentially Freemasonry that founded this country.

      Your opinion about the stone holes is irrelevant; it makes perfect sense and is completely logical. If you had read my book carefully, you’d know that all the stone holes are explained. Eight are part of the remaining geometry to relocate the KRS, four of the smallest stone hole boulders were moved to the edge of the field by the Ohman’s, and the final three in the largest boulders in the north form a perfect equilateral triangle, the tell-tale calling card of the Templars.

      Of course, you already knew that…

    8. Breaking down your latest entry by paragraph.....

      First paragraph....

      I guess we're going to go 'round and 'round about keep citing the KRS and the Bat Creek Stone as proof. I'm asking you to bring forth more than just these two rocks. You say there is "plenty of it (evidence) there already", but you never elaborate specifically. Please cite others. I would especially be interested in pieces of archaeological evidence not discovered or interpreted by you. If what you say is true there has to be discoveries out there independent of your own that would corroborate or fit in with your Templar narrative.

      Second paragraph....

      Here we can both agree. DNA studies SHOULD be done on pre-Columbian native remains found here in the States. If European and/or Middle Eastern markers would be found in such a study I would be the first to admit that I was wrong. If such studies DID NOT reveal the required DNA markers wouldn't that be evidence that your theory is misguided? Would you then admit it, or would you hang on until every last skeletal remain was tested knowing full well that such a task would be impossible? I suspect the latter. As far as a Smithsonian conspiracy....who exactly are you pointing the finger at? Vague claims of conspiracy without naming names seems like it would be beneath a real researcher. Seems to me like if a real conspiracy existed the Smithsonian would destroy the KRS and the Bat Creek Stone, both of which were in it's possession at one time or another, if a real effort to suppress your "truth" was underway. Instead, the Smithsonian freely loans the Bat Creek Stone back to the Cherokee.

      Third paragraph....

      One Story Keeper in the Ojibwe tribe? That's the best you can do? It would not be hard to find real concrete evidence of a European plague here in the states during the 14th century if there was such a thing. And, if natives were exposed to European diseases beforehand then the Small Pox epidemic of the 1800's would not have been as deadly to native populations as it was.


    9. Fourth paragraph....

      As far as animal husbandry and agriculture here in the states.....let's assume you are correct, we might not see radical change in the way Native Americans did things, but we would still see maize and other plants native to the Americas being raised for profit in Europe pre-Columbus. Corn introduced to Europe prior to Columbus would have changed the whole European economy and likely would have sparked mass, documented migration to the Americas in and of itself.

      Fifth paragraph....

      I am genuinely you claim that only a few hundred Templars traveled to the Americas over the course of three hundred years. However, I've listened to radio shows you've been on, I've read your books, and I've watched your television shows. You repeatedly claim that Templars, proto-Templars (whatever they are), Egyptians, Jews, and others have been coming to North and South America in huge numbers for thousands of years prior to Columbus. In the case of the Egyptians in the Grand Canyon you claim 50,000 people came to the States in just that one instance. Which is it?

      Sixth paragraph....

      My opinion about the stone holes is as relevant as yours is. I have done as much or more study on this particular phenomenon as you have. If four of the smaller stone holes on the Ohman property were moved during modern times (as you admit), then where were they prior to being moved, and how would their original locations have affected the "sacred" geometrical design that points YOU (and only you) to the KRS discovery site? You can't answer that because you don't know where they were placed exactly. You don't even know exactly where the KRS was found......nobody does. And, what about the documented first hand claims that these "ancient" stone holes (that you have NOT dated using even your own method of relative weathering) were chiseled during the late 1800's by the Ohman boys in an effort to clear farm land by blasting apart bigger stones? How do you explain that the stone holes were NEVER associated with the KRS, European explorers, or natives until 30 years AFTER the KRS was discovered? These stone holes were not unique enough to garner any attention by settlers until Hjalmar Rued Holand made a desperate attempt to popularize the KRS after people were losing interest in it. I think the total lack of interest in stone holes until the 1930's is pretty convincing evidence that they are 18th century blasting holes, or in some cases deliberate fakes made after the 1930's in an attempt by KRS supporters to add a level of authenticity to the KRS. Blasting holes wouldn't draw interest during the 1800's while land was being cleared. But, a couple of generations later their purpose might have been forgotten and a romantic idea of European exploration might have been embraced.

      After repeated requests for you to show any evidence other than the KRS and Bat Creek Stones you come up empty handed. After repeated requests for you to provide names of other geologists that agree with your weathering studies as a reliable way to date stones, you don't provide any. After a challenge issued to provide names of other geologists who are currently using your methods to date other historical discoveries you can't think of any. Instead of answering my questions you point to unsupported vague suppression conspiracy claims. Then you have the audacity to call my opinions irrelevant while elevating your own opinion to the level of fact. One last chance to come clean on any of these requests, otherwise I think I've learned everything I can here.

    10. At least your tone has improved which we all appreciate.

      What else is there...? How about the 32 Tucson Lead Artifacts that are self-dated to the 8th & 9th centuries and were discovered in a perfect archaeological context 48-72" deep encased in caliche cemented alluvial sand and gravel with no evidence of intrusion or planting. How about the three Spirit Pond Rune Stones, the Narragansett Rune Stone, and the Newport Tower? These are all authentic pre-Columbian artifacts and sites. BTW, if you pull the sidewalk up around the Tower you'll find the other six wooden post columns to the first story ambulatory along with who knows what else. It's the one place no one has ever conducted an archaeological excavation.

      The Smithsonian did not freely loan the artifact. I'm not at liberty to discuss private correspondence between the EBCI and the Smithsonian, but let's just say they had little choice in the matter. Destroying the artifacts would have irreparably ruined their credibility. That's not a well-thought out point in this response. Will you admit that I was right if the DNA markers come in that support my claims?

      I've had other discussions with certain Natives from Northern tribes and they have similar stories. Most Natives don't trust archaeologists and scholars, and resent how they try to tell them what their history is when, as evidenced here, they don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. You can start to become educated about their rituals by reading the Native Americans chapter in my latest book. Of course, the Medi' win Shaman only shared the first four degrees of their rituals to the Smithsonian in the 1860's.

      Why would they bring corn, tobacco, marijuana or aloe back to Europe when the long-range plan was to establish their own permanent sanctuary and "New Jerusalem" in North America? It doesn't any business sense.

      You're not confused, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Incidentally, I never claimed nor do I agree that 50,000 people ever lived in caves in the Grand Canyon. What is it about my thesis that is so offensive to you? It's logical and has plenty of factual evidence to support it. What we're talking about is the greatest coup de tat that ever happened and not one scholar has figured it out. The main reason is the blood-line families were more intelligent and secretive than their enemies and only now is their long-range plans coming to fruition in the final phase. Once you open your mind to it you'll be as amazed as I am.

      Your strained arguments against the stone holes are going no where. First, we know exactly where the KRS was discovered and it just so happened to conform to the stone hole geometry that's still left. The ones that were moved liked offered redundancy in case exactly what did happen happened. The Templars were too smart for that. Prove to me the stone holes are modern and I'll admit you have an incredible coincidence involving not 2, not 3, but 8 stone holes. Not likely.

      Unfortunately, there hasn't been much demand and even less money available for this type of relative-age dating work. In part, because of angry and negative scholars who dismiss this science that threatens to topple their sacred paradigms. I'm probably the only one in the world doing this work.

      Are you threatening me by saying if you're not satisfied with my answers you will leave? It's pretty clear you won't be satisfied with anything I say so thanks for the exchange.

    11. Breaking my response down by your paragraphs above....

      Paragraph 1...

      You're doing it again. The ONLY evidence you cite is your own controversial interpretation of other questionable finds. Can't you come up with ONE SINGLE non-controversial archaeological find independent of your own that supports your claims? As far as the Tucson artifacts, caliche can form very swiftly under certain circumstances, and without further study it's presence surrounding the Tucson artifacts means virtually nothing. Here is another example of swift rock formation; Nobody would come to the conclusion that the hammer in this link is more than 200 or so years old. Instead of rehashing old fringe ideas about the Newport Tower and the like, why don't you do some concrete archaeological work? Make a real, concrete discovery. Then people can really get behind you. You should organize and find funding for a Newport Tower dig, go in search of the Beardmore site, etc. Do something real instead of misinterpreting the discoveries of others.

      Paragraph 2......

      You say the Smithsonian destroying artifacts would have ruined their credibility. Then you tell me my statement was not well thought out. Okay. But, haven't you been repeatedly claiming that not-so-well-thought-out scenario by insinuating that institute intentionally lost native remains found near the Bat Creek Stone? I'm confused. When I suggest it I'm dumb, but when you accuse the Smithsonian with something similar you are a "real-life Indiana Jones". As far as genetic markers go....prove they exist and we'll talk. If you can't then maybe you should give it up.

      Paragraph 3.....

      Native American rituals have nothing to do with scientific study of historical disease. If a massive native population decline occurred due to European disease prior to Columbus then it would be evident in Native remains. Word-of-mouth story telling down through generations, while important to culture, is in no way a reliable gauge of the historical record. Again, if you believe there is truth to these stories, then buckle down and do the real work to corroborate them. Don't just keep building a more detailed intricate narrative on top of more unprovable claims.

      Paragraph 4......

      Come on, man! Profit from new, exotic goods makes total sense and has driven the world economy since the trade began. It says a lot about your own credibility and knowledge when you make the claim that profit wouldn't have made sense to medieval European man.


    12. Paragraph 5.....

      Nope, sorry, I'm sincerely confused. Which is it again? Earlier in this thread you said that only a few hundred Europeans came to the states over the course of 300 years. Now, in your latest response you cite the Tucson artifacts as authentic. They tell a story of a whole civilization of Middle Easterners coming to the Americas about 1500 years ago. Again I ask, which is it?

      Paragraph 6.....

      You don't know EXACTLY where the KRS was discovered. Even within the Ohman family accounts differ on its exact location. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all just discount the information that we didn't want to hear like you're doing with the stone holes that were moved? For instance, I discount the evidence that my bank account is overdrawn. I still have checks in my checkbook, so I'll keep spending money. Scott, you can't really believe that you add to your credibility when you pick and choose what evidence you're going to use and discount whatever does fit.

      Paragraph 7....

      You probably are the only person in the world doing this work. I'm not a Geologist, but I would ask why others in your field aren't trying your technique. Why aren't your peers trying to replicate your work or applying it to other artifacts. I can only assume that they don't see any merit in it. If there was then geology students would be coming out of the woodwork trying to refine or add to your technique in attempts to get television shows of their own. There is not a whole lot of opportunity for celebrity in the field of Geology. Blaming the situation on lack of funds doesn't explain it all. After all, you're able to keep pushing forward without it.

      Paragraph 8.....

      I haven't threatened you in any way. If you feel threatened when people ask questions about your ridiculous theories, then you're in the wrong field.

    13. P-1 Please don't try to talk to me about geological processes when it obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Picking a random situation that has nothing to do with the depositional environment where the Tucson Lead Artifacts were found is inappropriate; just stop already. I have personally examined the site and it is geologically clear, concise and consistent with deposits that developed over approximately 1200 years. These artifacts are genuine and you are going to have to accept them; period.

      P-2 Fact: The Smithsonian Institution lost the Bat Creek Mound jawbones. Opinion: I believe it was intentional. If it was incompetence that is just as bad.

      P-3 You can start by being a little more respectful of Native's oral traditions. They are a Hell of lot more reliable than you think. When the Smithsonian Institute starts turning over the Native remains, and the Natives give permission to test them, then the DNA party will start.

      P-4 Everything comes in its own time. You seem to think change happens instantaneously. It took time and eventually agriculture did boom on this continent as you well know.

      P-5 Maybe it's both; smaller groups in the northern latitudes and perhaps a larger contingent into the southwest at an earlier time. The point here is these ideas need to be taken seriously and studied. It is precisely rigid, close-minded negative attitudes like yours that have stifled the understanding of our past. That is why I gave up on the older academic generation and focused on younger open minds who haven't been poisoned by the "old academic way."

      A fresh new wind is blowing in and all your complaints aren't going to stop it.

      P-6 I'm not going to dignify this statement with a response. I stand behind what I said.

      P-7 Others in my field are trying my techniques and embracing this new science of Archaeopetrography. Instead of being so damn negative, why don't you try reaching out and asking how we might be able to help?

      P-8 You don't bother me in the least; you call me names because I scare the crap out of you that I might be right. You have asked your questions and I have answered them. None of these artifacts, sites, or me are going away. Try changing your attitude and open your mind to the possibilities here. You might actually make a positive contribution.

    14. I agree. Positive contributions to actual science based on fact would be helpful. And, yes, you certainly have scared the crap out of me, but not because I'm intimidated by your ridiculousness!

  38. The difference between you and academics though is that if they ignore evidence their colleagues realize it and their projects don't get funded and their careers fail and they become laughingstocks. That's how it works and how it's meant to work-- for the sake of the public good, and civilization and evidence-based history. How else can we combat these conspiracies you talk about but with evidence?

  39. Ginger,

    The academic peer review process clearly failed in the cases of work on the Kensington Rune Stone and other historical oddities. The scholars know nothing about the fugitive Templar orders so it's no wonder they struggle with documents that were intended to be kept secret so how can they possibly say anything intelligent about them?

    The fundamental issue is their egos did not allow them to simply say "I don't know." The only thing they could do to save face is declare the inscription(s) fake to hopefully make them go away. The trouble is, fakes do go away and quickly. It's the real stuff that keeps hanging around.

  40. Have you ever thought of donating funds to the Runestone Museum in Alexandria, Minnesota? They could certainly use the help. Your whole television career came about because of the KRS, and it might be a nice gesture. I was there recently and was disappointed that the KRS seems to be taking a back seat to many other local, less impactful displays. Even the museum and the curator don't really seem to understand the value of that stone. Donate some money with the restriction that it be used only on the KRS and surrounding displays. They wouldn't be smart to refuse.


  41. T-Bone,

    The truth is any money donated would go toward fixing the roof, painting the building and fixing up other displays before it would go toward the KRS.

    You are quite right the staff doesn't understand the value of the KRS. It has been a frustration of mine for many years now. At some point in the future in might be better off somewhere else.

    1. Thanks for the reply Scott! I'm sure you could restrict any funding you donate to the museum. This happens all the time with charitable donations. The museum could only accept the donation if they agreed to spend it on what you (the donor) wanted it to go to. If they accepted restricted funds and used them for something else they could get into a lot of trouble. Something to consider. It just seems to me that if the KRS is real we should be doing everything we can to treat it with the respect it deserves. There are plenty of people out there profiting from it for sure, and maybe its time to give a little back?


  42. Dear Scott, Has any historian looked at the Kensington Runestone? If so, what would he have to gain by deceiving the public about it? And if he did, why would other historians go along with him? They wouldn't! They'd say, this guy's so wrong-- the Kensington Runestone is a fantastic opening into a mysterious chapter of Knights Templar visits to this continent-- really exciting! Etc.

  43. Ginger,

    To be fair to the academic historians, the Templars coming to North America is so foreign to them they don't know what to do with this history. The Templars operated in extreme secrecy so how could the historians know anything about them? The problem is instead of simply saying they don't know anything and apparently believe people will think they're stupid, so they have removed all doubt by claiming it's all nonsense.

    If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. The Templars coming to North America (and everywhere else) isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of factual evidence. When the academics are ready to open their minds and look at the evidence, I am confident they will change their current opinions.

    It all starts with the Kensington Rune Stone.

  44. Dear Scott My name is Dustie Inman iam a mother from a little town in the foot hills if California called Paradise. I see all these people talking trash to you and about you and your work. I think you are an amazing man and incredible at the work you do.You are brave enough to open doors that have needed to be open for a very long time.Please never stop your inspirational work you are makeing a difference . Thank you so very much for all you do.

    P.s if you would like a new place to dig around come on over to my
    neck off the woods there are a few places i think you might like ......

    All my thanks Dustie Inman

  45. Hi Dustie,

    It's really quite simple, if you don't have evidence to refute facts, then attack the messenger. It's people like these who keep us from truth and further their own misguided agendas. I can promise you it won't stop me; it only inspires to go even harder because it confirms I'm on the right track.

    Thank you for the kind words of encouragement; I do appreciate it.

  46. I would urge all who post to this Blog to use your name and not "Anonymous".
    Mr. Wolter uses his real name and takes credit and responsibility for his comments, you all should do likewise.

  47. dear Scott. in that knights templar round building where the x;s crossed,venus did not hit the nish at that time is because the planets travel in a elliptical pattern and not round,when venus and earth will be at it's proper place then venus will hit the nish. great fan of yours ,happy cristmas.

  48. I agree that the light cast from Venus almost certainly does hit the niche at some point in the past. That fact we were close was enough to prove to me the Venus alignments were built into the Tower by the builders.

    Precession due to the earth's wobble and the fact the alignment is no longer perfect tells you the Tower has been there for many centuries.

  49. Wow, UofM really needs some academic oversight. I have never before seen such a hodgepodge of regurgitated information already pre-existing in the public domain being presented as 'compellingly new insights', combined with rampant 'could it be possible' speculation unfounded in anything scientific. It seems sadly fitting that the show is aired on H2, the same channel that brings us 'Ancient Aliens', based on the same 'could it be possible' premises. I'm all for pushing conventional thinking, but these probings need to also be based on the scientific method. You espouse the 'if you don't have the evidence to refute the facts, then attack the messenger' defense - but there is precious little facts in what you present. You've made a TV show - not a pragmatic scientific endeavor. It is just your suppositions on what might be possible, wrapped in a layer of dramatic posturing for the camera (basically, every shot of you in your 'lab', or receiving 'packages'). You have a bully pulpit - use it to truly advance and expand thinking. Not pure speculation in historical areas that you actually seem to have no academic basis of knowledge. Make educated, enlightened people like me interested and CARE. Don't just regurgitate existing information as your own, or position pure speculation as scientifically-based fact. Give us a show that intelligent people can appreciate. Don't lower yourself to the base.

  50. Wow, apparently you haven't been paying very close attention to the show. Have you really watched the episodes carefully or have you read any of my books, or any of my scientific reports on the various subject matter? Clearly you have not.

    You also need to keep in mind that we are making a television show with the large part of our audience being regular folks who apparently are as sophisticated as you. Regardless, we get a lot of new information out there and treat it carefully as a good scientist should. You only make a definitive statement when you have the cumulative evidence to draw a defendable conclusion. Surely you understand that right?

    I'm thrilled to death I've had this opportunity to expose the truth about so many of these bungled historical investigations in the past. My advice to you is to keep things in proper perspective and you'll enjoy the show, and our investigations a lot more.

    BTW; whatever gave you the idea that I was affiliated with the University of Minnesota? I graduated from the University of Minnesota at Duluth, but I operate and private material forensics laboratory in St. Paul. A quick Google search would have told you that.

    Anyway, no offense intended and none taken, but come on man!

  51. Wow, this paragraph is simply stunning:

    "Third, the Cistercians and Knights Templar were experts in farming and animal husbandry. However, I wouldn’t expect to see archaeological evidence of a wholesale change in Native farming practices and technology until there were enough knowledgeable Europeans to have meaningful impact in North America. That didn’t happen until after the Civil War with the founding of the Grange here in Minnesota. Of course you know it’s an offshoot of Freemasonry that is directly connected to the medieval brotherhood"

    I have a simple 4 year degree in Anthro. I can promise you that their would have been overwhelming evidence if what you described actually occurred. You would have an entire archaeological phase that would stick out like a giant sore thumb.

    Scott, I say this in all honesty. You lack the most basic, rudimentary understanding of archaeology. Before I went to college I had a lot of speculative theories about various things, mostly having fun with ideas. After I got my degree I look back on the old ideas and have a laugh. I beg you to go back to college in the field of archaeology. You will enjoy it as an older student and you will look back on some of your theories and be shocked at how incredibly silly you were. You won't be the first guy, nor will you the last guy, to experience this kind of humility...believe me, I did the same

  52. Wow, your comments sound a little arrogant if you don't mind my saying. Understanding the rudimentary elements of archaeology isn't rocket science I'm afraid. Do you even understand what I meant by the agricultural impact in this country of the Grange?

    Overwhelming evidence of impact on Native American agricultural practices? Can you enlighten me as to what you mean by that statement?

    1. So just so I understand this correctly. You believe that there was intermarrying amongst medieval Templar groups and native americans that went on for hundreds of years. And yet you don't think their would have been a diffusion of technology and ideas that would be expressed in the material culture of these inter-married groups? You don't believe pottery motifs would have changed? Or that European smelting practices ceased in favor of stone age tool sets, the Templars reverted back to stone tools (the ones that married I presume?) sets?

      I am not shocked about the agricultural statement, I am shocked that you actually believe that hundreds of years of co-mingling wouldn't have resulted in an expression of material culture that would have long ago been identified by the field of archaeology. Something of that magnitude would stick out like a sore thumb in archaeological record. I can cite a hundreds of examples of how this manifested itself at 17th century colonial missions of the Spanish, at Jamestowne and Charlestowne with the British, Fort Orange with the Dutch etc. Can you cite an example of 14th century artifacts showing up on Native American sites?

    2. Your question implies Native Americans even needed new technologies their Templar brethren might have passed on that archeologists would easily see evidence. You're talking about cultures that have existed just fine for thousands of years. Did ever occur to you that maybe the few Templars that did stay and assimilate might have learned about sustainability from the their hosts?

      This also begs the question that even if you're right about new technologies being introduced, how many of the Europeans are necessary to implement noticeable changes that archaeologist's today could identify?

      Too many of them are so close-minded to anything suggesting pre-Columbian contact by anyone other than the Norse, I have no confidence they would report these discoveries if the evidence bit them in the face.

      Sorry, but the track record of archaeologists in this arena is abysmal.

    3. Multiple problems with the above.

      All of the 16th century Spanish Entradas recount the effectiveness of European trade Items in exchange for food, shelter etc. When Hernando De Soto visited the Lady of Cofitachequi, he noted that the Indians had Spanish items already in their possession, items that he attributed to indirect trade network from one of Navarez's ship wrecks off the coast and years earlier (1528). Not only that, but Juan Pardo scribes documented that Orata's and Mico's (Indian Headmen) came from as far away as 600 miles to receive a small tribute that included things like iron axes, scissors, glass bead strands, and various other trinkets of euro make. In the following century, the entire Fur Trade was spurned on by the effectiveness of trade items for deer hides and beaver pelts. These interactions are documented thoroughly by European records amongst the French, Dutch, English, and Spanish. The Indian tribes documented in the fur trade were all of the Iroquoian tribes of the Northeast, Susquehanock (sic), Algonkuan (sic), Cherokee, Catawba, Creek...basically every tribal group in the Eastern United States. The body of evidence is staggering here. All of the tribes in the above had existed for thousands of years (or their antecedents) yet they were drawn to a new technology just as most of us are today.

      It's also a problem that you equate new technology with unsustainability, it infers that somehow European Technology would have corrupted the Native way of life. But the Native way of life was never static to begin with, they too had technological advances of course. Pottery wasn't invented by Native Americans until the Late Archaic time period, the Bow and Arrow didn't replace the Atl Atl dart until really late in time (some estimate 300-800 A.D.), yet it happened. So I seriously doubt they would have turned down using a metal axehead in favor of a blunt rock axe head, given the choice.

      Before we get into the specifics of Templars adopting the Native way of life, I need some estimates to work with. How many Templars came over and for how long (aprox is fine)? How many trips did they make and how many people were abroad each fleet?

  53. Wow Scott, To me if your man enough to call someone out on their work, you should be MAN enough to give your name...Oh and there is a lot of other things out there to Explain that OUR so Called History books wont touch. So Much for Collage...

  54. Cheri,

    Anyone can be a tough guy or a jerk behind a keyboard anonymously. It's the way of the internet these days...

  55. Scott,

    So why the push back to having your work peer reviewed by academics? You seem to be extremely confident in the quality of your research. If this is so, wouldn't you want every set of available eyes on it? I think you would admit, you're research as overlap in a lot of disciplines no? I mean you aren't solely talking geology when you make attempts to connect all the dots that you are attempting to connect. Why not go ahead and silence your critics by allowing something other then what you call "professional peer review"...just curious?

    1. My work has been available for academic peer review for years. They are welcome to review it whenever they want.

      "What I call "professional peer review" is exactly what it sounds like and is done all day, every day in the professional world. We are licensed individuals who took an oath to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public and are held accountable when things are done in a substandard way.

      Your inference is that professional peer review is something less than the academic peer review process. Indeed, the opposite is true as there is no real accountability in non-scientific discipline of academia. If so, then why can't they get something as simple and straightforward as the KRS right?

  56. Scott,

    I really do commend you for at least answering the questions via this blog. That says something about your character and the fact that 99% of entertainers wouldn't oblige this kind of QnA.

    My main problem with the show is the lack of qualifiers used. When you deal in the realm of events that occurred over 500 years ago you must use qualifiers. Instead, the show opens up as "history is wrong" and I never hear the words "it might appear" "this suggests" "it's a possibility" "perhaps" etc. The things you state are most often in a conclusive tone, the best historians know that qualifiers are necessary when dealing with the past. I think the historical accuracy of your show varies from 1% to 10% at any given time, but I do appreciate you fielding questions and for that, cheers

  57. Keep in mind that we are making a television show so there tends to be more absolute statements at times; especially in the openings. However, in the course of the investigations you hear me use what I feel are appropriate qualifiers until I feel there is enough supporting evidence to draw a definitive conclusion.

    If may not seem like it, but I'm actually damn careful before I say some "is" or "isn't". You'd be surprised how much criticism I get for not being more definitive in my statements.

    It goes with the territory.

  58. Hey Scott, Jimmy Palemono here, Would you ever agree to have your results analyzed by a court of arbitration or some kind of independent arbitration? I am a big fan of the show and I think this could be a way you could answer the critics. I think if you went to one you could agree on terms, that whatever expert in the field of archaeology would have to agree to review your work as nameless. That way "scott woltor" would never appear on the document. Seems a good medium

  59. Jimmy,

    I'm happy to have any impartial party looks at my testing on the Bat Creek Stone.

    Set it up; but they need to list specific issue they might have, not simply refer to other's complaints that have no factual support such as the Mainfort and Kwas hack job.

  60. Wolter you are a blithering idiot

  61. Care to elaborate or are you just lashing out anonymously because it makes you feel good?

  62. Hi Everyone, if you require peer review writing services then you can contact us at

  63. i watched the show on the american steonehenge last season. in your final episode of the season as the credits rolled, did i see you draw a line from the american stonehenge southwest to ohio? you should check out newark earthworks and mound city in ohio. i believe they fall on that same alignment.

  64. Sam Ray,

    I have visited the Newark Earthworks privately, but not with the show yet.

    Thanks for the suggestion.

  65. saw another episode about the bat creek ston and the ohio decalouge. scott the lost tribes do not include judea, levi or benjamin. they are the modern jews who were not exiled along with the others.

  66. I'm not sure of the association of the various Jewish tribes relative to the Bat Creek Stone. All I know is the archaeological context of the find is good and based on C-14 dating of organic material found with the inscribed stone it is at least 1,400 years old.

  67. Scott,
    Love your theories and shows. I was watching a show called Secrets of the Founding Fathers and something you said caught my eye. There is a painting by John Trumbull that, although claims call is exaduration,depicts the men standing in front of a table while the paperwork is signed. The gentleman in the foreground in front of the table(dont know who that was) has his hand on his hip and if you note the position of the fingers, he is making the "M" configuration with his hand. And my other observation appears to show the cross of the Knights Templar among the flags on the wall in the background.I know many were tied to the Free Masons but i picked up those details based on your shows. Interesting thoughts. Thank you.

    1. Anonymous,

      Now that you have the "eyes to see" you'll notice the "M" sign and other "Venus" Families" symbolism everywhere.

  68. Scott,
    Thank you for responding to myself and others on here. Shows the passion you have for getting to the truth about many things. The bigfoot subject is a far theory i believe. No concrete evidence. But this Mason and Knights Templar is pretty real. On that show, they delved much deeper into the symbols on our currency and the Decloration of Independence. Even a blind person can see the relevance all around them. No doubt there are huge coverups. The Gov't loves hiding things. I' m surprised you havent been approached about your delvings. I dont believe the Arc of the Covenant is buried under ground anywhere. Why chance the damage. If it does exist, it's tucked away in some secret vault somewhere. Hope to see more factual evidence on that sometime.

  69. Scott,
    While watching EgyptianSecrets of NYC, you brought out the dollar bill with the all seeing eye. Reminded me of something i saw on Secrets of the Founding Fathers where they talked about Ben Franklin and George Washington being Masons. Ben drew up the original design for currency and was turned down by the group. Only one that backed him was Thomas Jefferson. Anyway they felt that the designs were taken from a Masonic book that had pages and pages of designs in it. Anyway, getting back to the dollar, if you trace the outline on the outside of the stars above the eagle you get a 6 pointed star. Move that over to the left on top of the pyramid and you will see the points line up with the letters. Descramble the letters and it spells out MASONS. Didnt know if you saw that.

    1. Brett,

      I was aware of MASON within the text and the Seal of Solomon above the eagles head as I end some of my presentations with that image. There is a lot more going on symbolism-wise on the back of the dollar bill. First thing I would do is look into the number 13, and then ask yourself why is that important?

      There's a reason...

  70. Scott,
    There are untold reasons why 13 is so important. Most everything around the virgin Mary coincided with the number 13. Some say its gods number. 12 deciples and Jesus makes 13. The last feast was i believe June 13. All through religion was the number 13. Way too many to list. Possibly? There are 12.41 luminations per solar year. Creates our 12 months in a year. Leaving a partial 13th month. The unknown month. Maybe that was the inspiration to the Knights Templar. The number representing god and the unknown.

    1. Brett,

      The Virgin Mary was a metaphor for Mary Magdalene and it's origins could very well be related to the cycles of the moon. One can be the origins are related to some astronomical cycle and the moon is the best bet.

  71. Scott,
    This played much into what you were saying. Found this article:

    The Theory

    The main elements of the theory are that:
    Jesus had a child, probably a daughter, with Mary Magdalene, with whom he was married.
    The descendants of this child became the Merovingian kings of France.
    The Church has suppressed the truth about Mary Magdalene and the Jesus bloodline for 2000 years. This is principally because they fear the power of the sacred feminine, which they have demonized as Satanic.
    A secret order protects these royal claimants because they may be the literal descendants of Jesus and his wife, Mary Magdalene, or, at the very least, of King David and the High Priest Aaron.

    This secret society known as Priory of Sion has a long and illustrious history dating back to the First Crusade starting with the creation of the Knights Templar as its military and financial front.

    The Priory is led by a Grand Master or Nautonnier. It is devoted to returning the Merovingian dynasty, that ruled the Frankish kingdom from 447 to 751 AD, to the thrones of Europe and Jerusalem.

    The Roman Catholic Church tried to kill off all remnants of this dynasty and their guardians, the Cathars and the Templars, during the Inquisition, in order to maintain power through the apostolic succession of Peter instead of the hereditary succession of Mary Magdalene.

    A variation on the theory is that instead of dying on the cross, Jesus fled to Kashmir where he died in old age, returning to Srinagar where he had originally been influenced by Buddhist teachings.

    This theory is lent credence by close comparisons of Jesus' sayings in the Gnostic Gospel of St Thomas, which are seen by some as closely paralleling classical Buddhist Sutras.

    1. Brett,

      This is pretty much the story that's unfolded in my research which as well. Do you have a link or reference to this article?

  72. Scott,
    Here is the link.
    Also another link you might find interesting:

    1. Brett,

      Thanks for the links; I'll definitely take a look.

  73. Scott,
    The particular address i wanted you to see was this one:
    It references that the planet Venus represents Lucifer or better known Satan. Maybe the reason things were based on the planet Venus, wasnt because they were worshipping it. Maybe it was because they were keeping an eye on it because it represented evil. Quite contrasting statements.

    1. Brett,

      I can assure you the "Venus Families" did not consider the planet "Lucifer" or evil; that was an invention of the Church to demonize (literally) the people who embraced a different ideology that was a threat. Indeed, the Church should have been afraid, but despite their centuries-long campaign of persecution the Venus Families prevailed.

  74. Scott,
    I posted a site earlier for you to check out but didnt see it pop up in your blog here. The site was:
    What i found fascinating was the reference of Venus to Lucifer or better known as Satan. What i was thinking was maybe the sites and artifacts you studied that showed Venus as the "light" that enters, wasnt a source of worship, but rather a way to tract and watch evil or unholy phenomena. You said in your show about the lead artifacts found in Arizona that everything consists of balance. Night/day, good/evil. Was Venus actually a balance for earth? Having at one time possessing water? Something to think about. Check out the site and see what you think.

    1. Brett,

      You are definitely on the right track with regard to Dualism which is the concept of opposites that keep things in balance. In the case of the planet Venus, her consort is the sun, considered a male deity in most ancient religions. They are the eternal travelers. She leading him when a morning star, and he leading her when an evening star. They were considered the male/female deities in the heavens for time immemorial.

      There's much more it these concepts in the esoteric religions like the Kabbalah, but you get the basic points.

  75. Scott,
    Further studying this phenomenon, which totally fascinates me, there is a guy named Keith Ranville in Nova Scotia that believes the key to Oak Island, lies within the sister island of Birch island. Birch is the triangle shaped island that he believes was the actual depiction on the now missing stone found 90 feet below in the money pit. Have you ever had any interaction with him or Birch island itself? What do you think happened to that stone plaque found in the money pit? Was hoping you found out more on your adventure of The Search for the Holy Grail, but again history eludes us. But i agree. I think the items have been moved over and over. I still say its walled up somewhere here and someone knows more than than being said. Maybe Mason's themselves? Maybe only unvailed at the time of Jesus's return.

    1. Brett,

      Whatever "treasure" was there was moved centuries ago. There's a reason no one has discovered anything there in two centuries of digging.

      I think I have an idea where it was moved and am hoping to share that story on television in the near future.

      Stay tuned...

  76. Scott,
    I was looking over the different shows on the Knights Templar and between your's and other's which had you on as well, there was much talk on the hooked "X". I came across another web site i will post to you at the bottom of this message for you to check out. Anyway, i got thinking and this part isnt on any site. Why hook the X? Why not the R or the S or the K for that matter. Why not the T which resembles the cross? Some say the hook is actually an I symbolizing Christ. Maybe im off my rocker here but i was thinking the X is the symbol of male chromosome. And the hook is possibly a V not an I. V for Venus which is watching over some sort of male figure or males as in the Knights. The website im posting to you i wanted you to see, shows that maybe the Knights Templar had a falling out with the Roman Catholic Church and took all the "loot" to America to hide it as a way to get back at the RCC. Blatantly making trails to confuse yet smack their faces in trying to find where they hid it. Heres the site link.

    1. Brett,

      This site appears to have been created by someone who embraces Roman Catholic ideals. They are clearly threatened by the meaning of the Hooked X and for the most part have the story correct. He mistakenly claims that I claim to have discovered the Hooked X symbol. That is certainly not the case, the Hooked X symbol has been around for two millennia. What I believe I have discovered is the true MEANING of the Hooked X symbol and where it originated. This person is welcome to disagree, but I find it interesting they dwell so much on my now almost six year-old lecture?

      I'm glad the lecture has prompted this person to think, and apparently think a lot about this subject matter.

  77. Scott,
    Was watching Holy Grail in America. Two things had me thinking. One, the holes in the stones. Why couldn't they have been simply holders for marking flags. Stones wont go anywhere and if the flag holder was oak, would last for years. Anyway, more importantly, something caught my eye. In the one Freemason symbol, it showed the compass and the square with a face or some sort of face with rays coming off it in the center. But seen on that symbol which isnt usually shown on others is the face symbol is supported by 3 links of chain. Ironically, wasnt it three links of gold chain that was found in one of the Oak Island digs? As i said, coincidental?

    1. Brett,

      The stone holes certainly could have been used to hold marker flags to assist in surveying. I suspect this was likely the case at Rune Stone Hill in Kensington as the cluster of stone holes are all with sighting distance.

      I don't trust the gold chain was actually found on the island, but if it was, then there could be a symbolic connection, or clue to something much bigger.

      Hard to know without seeing it for myself.

  78. Hey Scott,
    Check out these sites. Goes with your theory that the Statue of Liberty tied in with the Freemasons. Bartholdi married a woman from none other than Newport, RI. Interesting.